2005 (8) TMI 512 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund/56A claim of the manufacturer regarding acetic anhydride captively consumed during a specific period.
2. Rejection of the refund application based on limitation and merits.
3. Interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act regarding limitation in cases of duty paid under protest.
4. Application of Rule 56A for credit of duty paid on inputs.
5. Maintainability of the refund application based on the approved classification list.
6. Claim for exemption on captively used goods and 56A benefit.
7. Time limit for filing refund applications in cases of payment of duty under protest.
8. Merits of the appellant's claim under Rule 9 and Rule 56A.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a chemical products manufacturer, filed a refund application for acetic anhydride consumed during a specific period. The application was rejected on grounds of limitation and merits.
2. The appellant's challenge regarding limitation focused on Section 11B, arguing that the six-month limit does not apply when duty is paid under protest. The appellant also sought the benefit of Rule 56A for credit on duty paid on inputs.
3. The merits of the case were debated, with the appellant asserting that Rule 56A covered their product, and emergence of other products during production stages should not deny credit or refund.
4. The Respondent contended that the refund application was not maintainable as per the approved classification list. The appellant argued that the refund claim was a continuation of the approved classification and duty payment.
5. The appellant's dual claim for exemption on captively used goods and Rule 56A benefit was supported by legal provisions and previous judgments. The time limit for filing refund applications in protest cases was analyzed, concluding that the application was timely.
6. The appellant's claim for credit on duty paid on acetic anhydride was upheld based on Rule 9 and Rule 56A, with precedents supporting the grant of credit even after the initial payment.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, granting the appellant credit equivalent to the duty paid on acetic anhydride as per the refund application.